High Court · 2025

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation when the statement of the informant was recorded then he very casually disclosed that applicant was also having association with named co-accused and merely on this basis he has been made accused in the present matter.

5. He further submits that however, as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then he confessed his guilt and from his possession one country made pistol was recovered which allegedly used in the instant crime but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false and he never confessed his guilt before anyone including Police.

6. He further submits that even no recovery of weapon could be made either from the possession of applicant or on his pointing out and it reflects that alleged recovery is false and planted one. He next submits that even till date alleged recovered country made pistol could not be connected with the instant crime.

7. He further submits that however, as per prosecution the CDR of the applicant suggests that he was present near the place of incident but merely on this basis it cannot be said that applicant also involved in commission of present crime along with others.

8. He further submits that however, co-accused Abhishek Saraswat alias Golu was even named in the FIR but after considering entire facts in detail he has been released on bail by this Court and his bail order has been annexed at page 95 of the paper book and on facts, case of applicant is at better footing than him.

9. He further submits that however bail application of co-accused Nitin Chaudhari has been dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.5.2025 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 43244 of 2024 but case of applicant is distinguishable from him as he was named in the FIR and he appears to be principal accused.

10. He further submits that however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of several other cases but his entire criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and in majority of the cases it appears Police during investigation implicated him and majority of the cases were of the year 2014.

11. He further submits that only due to previous criminal history police implicated the applicant in the present matter.

12. He further submits, even law is settled that if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily bail application of an accused should not be withheld on the ground of his criminal history.

13. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 20.5.2024, i.e., for the last more than a year.

14. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that bail application of co-accused Nitin Chaudhari has already been dismissed by this Court but they could not dispute the fact that he was named in the FIR while applicant was not named in the FIR. They further could not dispute the fact that co-accused Abhishek Saraswat alias Golu has been released on bail by this Court after considering entire facts in detail and on facts case of applicant appears to be at better footing than him.

15. They, however, further pointed out that applicant appears to be hardened criminal and he is having criminal history of as many as nine cases and he did not explain criminal history of two other cases but they conceded the fact that both unexplained cases were also of the year 2014.

16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

17. However, as per allegation applicant and other accused persons committed the murder of the deceased but applicant was not named in the FIR and very casually when informant in his statement recorded during investigation disclosed his name then he has been made accused in the present matter.

18. Further, named co-accused Abhishek Saraswat alias Golu has already been released on bail by this Court.

19. Further, however, bail application of co-accused Nitin Chaudhari has been dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court but he was named in the FIR and from the record it reflects that he was the principal accused, therefore, case of applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Nitin Chaudhari.

20. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of nine other cases and he explained criminal history of seven cases in the instant bail application but majority of the cases including unexplained cases were of the year 2014 and it appears that in almost all the cases during investigation he has been made accused. Considering these facts, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that Police is highly inimical with the applicant and during investigation police used to implicate the applicant and only due to his previous criminal history applicant has been made accused in the present matter by the Police during investigation, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

21. Further, this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that ordinarily if otherwise case of bail is made out then merely on the basis of criminal history bail application of an accused should not be withheld.

22. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since

20.5.2024, i.e., for the last more than a year.

23. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

24. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

25. Let the applicant-Alok Chowdhary be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

26. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

27. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 SKM SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and applicant was not named in the FIR but during investigation when the statement of the informant was recorded then he very casually disclosed that applicant was also having association with named co-accused and merely on this basis he has been made accused in the present matter.

5. He further submits that however, as per prosecution when applicant was arrested then he confessed his guilt and from his possession one country made pistol was recovered which allegedly used in the instant crime but entire allegation levelled against the applicant is totally false and he never confessed his guilt before anyone including Police.

6. He further submits that even no recovery of weapon could be made either from the possession of applicant or on his pointing out and it reflects that alleged recovery is false and planted one. He next submits that even till date alleged recovered country made pistol could not be connected with the instant crime.

7. He further submits that however, as per prosecution the CDR of the applicant suggests that he was present near the place of incident but merely on this basis it cannot be said that applicant also involved in commission of present crime along with others.

8. He further submits that however, co-accused Abhishek Saraswat alias Golu was even named in the FIR but after considering entire facts in detail he has been released on bail by this Court and his bail order has been annexed at page 95 of the paper book and on facts, case of applicant is at better footing than him.

9. He further submits that however bail application of co-accused Nitin Chaudhari has been dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 5.5.2025 passed in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 43244 of 2024 but case of applicant is distinguishable from him as he was named in the FIR and he appears to be principal accused.

10. He further submits that however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of several other cases but his entire criminal history has been explained in the instant bail application and in majority of the cases it appears Police during investigation implicated him and majority of the cases were of the year 2014.

11. He further submits that only due to previous criminal history police implicated the applicant in the present matter.

12. He further submits, even law is settled that if otherwise case of bail is made out then ordinarily bail application of an accused should not be withheld on the ground of his criminal history.

13. He further submits that applicant is in jail in the present matter since 20.5.2024, i.e., for the last more than a year.

14. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that bail application of co-accused Nitin Chaudhari has already been dismissed by this Court but they could not dispute the fact that he was named in the FIR while applicant was not named in the FIR. They further could not dispute the fact that co-accused Abhishek Saraswat alias Golu has been released on bail by this Court after considering entire facts in detail and on facts case of applicant appears to be at better footing than him.

15. They, however, further pointed out that applicant appears to be hardened criminal and he is having criminal history of as many as nine cases and he did not explain criminal history of two other cases but they conceded the fact that both unexplained cases were also of the year 2014.

16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

17. However, as per allegation applicant and other accused persons committed the murder of the deceased but applicant was not named in the FIR and very casually when informant in his statement recorded during investigation disclosed his name then he has been made accused in the present matter.

18. Further, named co-accused Abhishek Saraswat alias Golu has already been released on bail by this Court.

19. Further, however, bail application of co-accused Nitin Chaudhari has been dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court but he was named in the FIR and from the record it reflects that he was the principal accused, therefore, case of applicant is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Nitin Chaudhari.

20. Further, however, apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of nine other cases and he explained criminal history of seven cases in the instant bail application but majority of the cases including unexplained cases were of the year 2014 and it appears that in almost all the cases during investigation he has been made accused. Considering these facts, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that Police is highly inimical with the applicant and during investigation police used to implicate the applicant and only due to his previous criminal history applicant has been made accused in the present matter by the Police during investigation, cannot be ruled out at this stage.

21. Further, this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant that ordinarily if otherwise case of bail is made out then merely on the basis of criminal history bail application of an accused should not be withheld.

22. Further, in the present matter applicant is in jail since

20.5.2024, i.e., for the last more than a year.

23. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

24. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

25. Let the applicant-Alok Chowdhary be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

26. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

27. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 SKM SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad